I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Additional References' - Patman

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

“ According to the Western model, pregnancy is a disease, menopause is a disease, and even not getting pregnant is a disease. Dangerous drugs and devices are given to women, but not to men-just for birth control. I’ve reached the conclusion that to many doctors being a woman is a disease.” (Italics are the author’s)

Both of these are progestogins (progesterones). Both require some form of hypodermic application. They are long lasting (months). These can cause severe mood changes in many women as well as acting as birth control.Because of mood alteration one doctor quoted in Grant’s “Sexual Chemistry” has stated that many women are so ornery when on these drugs that no one would get close enough to have children.

Women seem to remember treated “soup” They lost their period within 10 days.

At Nuremberg trials after the second world war- Nazis involved with Auschwitz testified to growing S.American plants in greenhouses. These plants produce estrogen like substances. These chemicals form the basis of the original “pill”.

Conclusion was: the women and men were fed estrogens as an experiment in birth control.

In the 1940s Margaret Sanger convinced Katherine McCormick to fund the research for the “pill”. Sanger reasoned that the pill was needed for the ignorant masses in jungles, slums, etc. (This statement is in the Nov/Dec/’95 issue of “The Sciences”- see slide #1). Sanger was a leading proponent of the eugenics movement. Her motto was “more children from the fit, less from the unfit-that is the chief aim of birth control”

The original reason for development of the pill was not primarily to free women, it was to rid the world of “undesirables” -the dream of the moneyed elite and (based on the Auschwitz evidence) the Nazis.

The New Scientist points out that the World Bank calls population control “the most cost effective form of development aid” D. Mackenzie,New Scientist, 138, 3 Apr ‘90, p.4

It is well known that use of hormones can be detrimental to children if used too close to pregnancy. Women get pregnant- therefore to protect the next generation, women should not take chances with the pill.

It is for these reasons that I agree with some “radical” feminists who declare the pill to be antiwoman.(For Example- see Denfield, R. p.249 in Gross, P. et.al. “The Flight from Science & Reason”, NY Acad. of Sci., 1996 & Robyn Roland in “Man-Made Women”, isbn# 0-253-20450-x, p.86)

What is the alternative? Perhaps a partial answer is in the British Medical Journal(18 Sep ‘93, p.307).

Newer self administered tests that determine a woman’s readiness to become pregnant do work as well as the pill in preventing untimely pregnancy.

The benefits are a. no unnatural chemicals and b. an almost non-existent divorce rate among couples using this method. See “Healh”, jan/feb, ‘01, p54 for the effects of divorce on kids.

Carl Djerassi, an early investigator in pill research has been quoted as being in favor of fertility monitoring for teens and young women- both for birth control(NFP) and for fertility. He says there are red light and green light hormones. (see Discover, Mar., ‘91, p. 23.)

“Science News” (vol 155-23/01/99-p.56) reports that only some chlorinated hydrocarbons, not DDT, chlordane, or kepone are associated with elevated breast cancer risk. High blood levels of dieldrin, the most estrogen-like insecticide, is associated with double the cancer risk of dieldrin free women. (One wonders about the wisdom of using estrogens themselves when chemicals that mimic estrogens are so risky.)

In the Parade section of the 31 Jan 99 edition of the Hartford Courant (CT) Dianne Hales states that the longer in life a woman is exposed to estrogen, the greater the risk of breast cancer (p5). She refers to self-produced estrogen- but why not those estrogens in the pill? Are these estrogens safer than natural ones?

The British Medical Journal (Dec 1998) recently reported that long term studies indicate a lessening of risk to 0 for profound side effects from the pill ten years after discontinuance of use. However, note that the effects are there during use and for ten years after. Additionally, only survivors were counted. Those who died before the study were not counted. CBS news used the headline “Pill causes no Problems”- clearly misleading.

Tamoxifen is a drug antagonist for estrogen. It is used to reverse the tumor promoting effects of estrogen in treatment of breast cancer.* There have been conflicting published reports of use as a tumor preventative. Note the clear and consistent connection between breast cancer and estrogen.

Health magazine states that a federal advisory panel recommended that the National institutes of Health recognize estrogen as a cancer causing substance. This was followed by soothing words about risk/benefit. (P.182, Mar’01) On the same page, a new delivery of estrogen containing birth control chemicals (by injection) was being touted. This magazine is supposedly trying to help women.

All the chemicals used in all pills need to survive the gastrointestinal system. None of the steroids now used are produced naturally in the body. These natural steroids need injection. Users of the pill cannot avoid the fact that manufactured chemicals produce a disorder in a healthy body.This is identical to ingesting the pesticides, additives and other chemicals that can cause problems.

Being able to become pregnant is healthy- becoming chemically sterile is not. The body is being stressed by synthetic hormone-like substances when the “pill” is used in an otherwise healthy person. Dr Ellen Grant went from staunch advocate to opponent of steroid contraceptives based on her patients’ bad experiences.

Articles are appearing in the scientific journals that show ill effects on fish from estrogens and estrogen mimicking chemicals. Estradiol can affect fish at the 1 part per trillion level.See for example G.Vines, “Unmanned by a sea of Oestrogen (estrogen)”, New Scientist, 138 1993 p.5 and L.C.Folmar et.al., Environmental Health Perspectives, 104:10 Oct ‘96, p. 1096

The pill does cause breast cancer according to researchers at the Mayo Clinic. A study of women who used the “pill” up to 1975 showed a three times greater incidence of breast cancer over non-users. The reduced estrogen pill used post’75 theoretically was expected to be less dangerous.* Care to participate as a voluntary lab subject? Take the pill. You can trust them.*Zandonella, C., Health,jan/feb, 2000, p.144

The evidence is reported in a Medlineplus article derived from a report by Martha Kerr for Reuters/ 8 Feb ‘02. The risk of stroke from third generation pills is twice that for the second generation pill. Both second and third generation pills are worse than the original formulations for the pill.

Designer estrogen mimics: New developments based on tamoxifen and raloxifene seem to suggest that by careful chemical design it may be possible to reduce or eliminate side effects while retaining benefits of hormone replacement therapy. Christensen, D., “Science News”, 16 Oct ‘99, p252.

On 24 July ‘01 the Oneonta Daily Star reported that the American Heart Association no longer recommends that estrogen be given to women to help prevent heart and other cardio-vascular problems. It does not work although it was previously thought to help keep the cardiovascular system healthy.

RU 486 acts by interfering with progesterone. It is a synthetic steroid hormone. Once again all the long term problems associated with steroid use are potentially present. It acts by making the lining of the uterus inhospitable to the new human being. Deprivation of nutrients starves the baby and it dies.

Once the RU486 does its job and the baby is dead, the remains must be flushed from the uterus. Typical usage of RU486 requires the woman (day 1) with a verified 3-9 week pregnancy to ingest RU486. After 48 hours, she returns to the doctor (~3% of women will have miscarried the baby at this time). Women who have not yet miscarried then receive misoprostol to induce labor. She must remain in the doctor’s care for at least 4 hours to be monitored for side effects. Another 54% of miscarriages will occur at the doctors office during this 4 hours. If no miscarriage occurs, the woman is released . A miscarriage may occur anywhere now. In 43% of the cases the woman leaves the office to go into labor on her own. Bleeding can occur and last up to 14 days. (continued on the next slide)

The patient returns to the doctor after 14 days for a checkup. She will then undergo a dilation & curettage (D&C) to remove any remains that may cause an infection. Some women (5-10%) will not have the abortion and will require a surgical abortion. (NOTE: the percentages used will not necessarily add up to 100 due to an uncertainty of up to 5% in many percentages given.)

G.D. Searle has issued a warning to doctors about Cytotek. On 23 Aug. 2000, Michael Cullen, MD wrote to the nation’s obstetricians about serious side effects when used off-label. The company has incomplete risk research for use with RU486 or similar chemicals. The chemical is not approved by GD Searle for induction of labor or abortion. It is approved for use in preventing the bleeding that occurs from NSAIDS such as aspirin and ibuprofen. cont’d on next slide

There are some uses for RU486 that are not connected with abortion. Among these are possible use for breast cancer. As with all scientific discoveries there are wise and unwise uses. As for Citotek, prevention of bleeding from aspirin and other NSAIDS is a boon for arthritis patients and others who depend on NSAIDS for pain and inflammation relief. A contact with representative Sherwood Boehlert, Represen-tative to the House led to some information justifying the FDA’s approval of Citotek. The information in the Searle letter is disputed by the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians who see Cytotek as a useful drug in their practice.

See an edited version of the RU-486 news in Health Magazine, jan/feb 2001, p. 147

They see the risks listed in the Searle letter as overblown and they assert that at the concentrations they use the risks are minimal. (Perhaps because it is not administered to them.) Please note that it is very unusual for a drug company to not maximize use of their product as Searle has done .

The letter from Rep Boehlert and the information sent me on cytotek is available from the instructor

Dr. Joel Brindof Baruch College SUNY has published some research that indicates an increased risk of cancer after an induced abortion. Once again abnormal estrogen production or response may be at the bottom of this observation.